Keith could not be transported to the hearing and thus couldn't make
the judge's requirements for release. Next hearing next month.

Arel

Thanks for the info, Fred.
That sounds really kinda odd. I think a big "WHY NOT?" is in order.

A BIG "WHY NOT?" IS DEFINITELY IN ORDER!

This from Arel:

The excuse was that 3 days is not enough time for notice to transport him from the jail in Riverside to Banning, about an hour's drive at most. They transport prisoners, usually, in herds.

(Hopefully) Better news to come soon

3 days notice. Blimey, what's the big deal. <shaking head in disbelief>.

I know someone who works for a company that transports prisoners to and from courts (UK). I don't know how it works over there but as soon as a court requires the presence of a defendant who is in a jail then the company has to jump to it. The vans are going between court and regional jails often several times a day. There may be some extra organisation/preparation required for dangerous violent criminals but paperwork for minor non-violent offenders is minimal. Perhaps they are STILL using the CHARGE sheet, rather than the misdemeanor he was merely convicted of, to determine the "danger level" of Keith Henson. Either that or there's clams or clam influence involved in the bureaucracy of the jail/transportation organisation.

Actually, I checked for new legal actions also, and forgive me if this isn't a new one as the thread is huge but I think it is. I am not a legal pundit ... can someone who knows about this explain it. It would appear that transcripts for appeal were requested by another party and they were denied. But again I could be wrong.

HONORABLE PATRICK F. MAGERS, PRESIDING
CLERK: L. SERRANO
COURT REPORTER: NONE
APPELLANTS REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPTS FOR APPEAL IS HEREBY DENIED.
NOTICE TO BE GIVEN BY CLERK
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING RE: ORDER
NOTICE SENT TO MARK J. WERKSMAN ON 6/27/07
NOTICE SENT TO MT SAN JACINTO JUDICIAL DIST -CRIMINAL ON 6/27/07
NOTICE SENT TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY -RIVERSIDE ON 6/27/07